An idol with feet of clay? According to the Encyclopedia of Word and Phrase Origins, "The phrase comes from the Old Testament (Dan.2:31-32). . . .Nebuchadnezzar had dreamed of a giant idol with golden head, silver arms and chest, brass thighs and body, and iron legs. Only the feet of this image, compounded of iron and potter's clay, weren't made wholly of metal. Daniel told Nebuchadnezzar that the clay feet of the figure made it vulnerable, that it prophesied the breaking apart of his empire. . . . the phrase 'feet of clay' in the story . . . was used centuries ago to describe an unexpected flaw or vulnerable point in the character of a hero or any admired person."So it applies to MiShawna Moore, the highly-touted former principal of CCSD's Sanders-Clyde Elementary. [See School Under Scrutiny in Wednesday's P & C.] Her success in raising test scores over the last five years has pushed CCSD into asking for a SLED investigation.
How, you ask? While CCSD's taxpayers were under the illusion that everything was kosher at S-C, CCSD received information at the end of the last school year from a whistle-blower, principal of a charter school, no less, that a fiddle lurked in the background.
"DiCenzo [of Orange Grove Charter] reported his concerns to the district after an article in May in The Post and Courier that highlighted Moore's work to improve Fraser and Sanders-Clyde. He didn't understand how such large gains could happen so quickly, he said.
"Washing clothes for a family is not going to improve test scores," he said."But 2007 wasn't the first alert that all was not as it seemed at Sanders-Clyde. Unfortunately, our SC Department of Education watchdogs were too dazzled by Moore's 2005 results to do more than a pro forma investigation even after erasures rang alarm bells: "The state monitor stayed for one day during testing [in 2006] and concluded there was no cause for alarm," according to Superintendent McGinley, who then went right ahead and appointed Moore to be head of a second elementary school.
Such trust encouraged ever higher results from S-C for 2006, to the point that even Janet Rose noticed, although she did tell a big, old fiberoo to the P & C last May when queried about CCSD's extraordinary precautions. According to the article,
"This year [2007 results], the school's PACT results fell sharply in every subject and at every grade level.
"This was the first time that the school district monitored the school's testing. District officials took tests away from the school each night and put monitors in classrooms daily. Janet Rose, the district's executive director of assessment and accountability, told The Post and Courier in May that the extra scrutiny would validate the school's scores " [but didn't say why they needed validating!]
So, even as the P &C wrote its puff-piece on Moore this summer, Sanders-Clyde's principal was fully under suspicion. Rose's caution allowed Moore to make her getaway to find another job, a promotion at that:
"A few weeks after the tests this spring, in a move that surprised parents and officials, Moore announced that she was leaving Charleston County. Moore refused to do any media interviews at that time, and she now works as an assistant superintendent in Halifax County, N.C., schools."
Maybe it didn't surprise ALL CCSD "officials." I'll bet it didn't surprise Larry DiCenzo.
Halifax County must be delighted to get such a paragon to improve its school system! Why, as assistant superintendent, Moore can have access to the testing of more than one school and improve it. Let's face it--it's not the first time that a school district has given a good recommendation in order to get rid of a bad apple.
What should happen to MiShawna Moore? Is $1000 and/or 90 days in jail enough punishment for making a travesty of testing procedures? NO. Losing teaching or administrative credentials isn't enough either. The rewards for cheating (and not getting caught) are too high and tempting.
How about $100,000 and/or five years in jail? Maybe some administrators lacking in morality will pause at that.
Meanwhile, should CCSD's assistant superintendents and superintendent be held responsible for fraud on their watch? McGinley wanted full responsibility for appointing principals. Now she's got it. What about penalties for her failure?
Posts
8 comments:
The superintendent has always had the power to move or fire a principal. What most people don't know is that from the beginning of their tenure, Goodloe-Johnson and later McGinley, never recognized constituent board authority (really it was only participation) in the selection and hiring of any principal. Gregg Meyers made this fact a condition of employment for both newly hired superintendents in 2003 and in 2007. Ironically, Arthur Ravenel delivered the coup de grace by making it legal less than a year ago. In return he gained the controlling majority's cooperation on other issues, if only for a little while.
The recent change in the law in 2007 (directly placing teacher and principal hiring in the super's hands) was just a formality confirming what was already in practice. Before that, what G-J and McGinley were doing, was in direct violation of the law.
A case in point was in 2004. District 20's recommendation was for one of 3 qualified candidates to be considered for the S-C principal position. These three were from a list of qualified candidates supplied to them by the superintendent and CCSD's Human Resources office (as per the Act of Consolidation). When the school and constituent level interviews were completed, three names were sent up to Goodloe. MiShawna Moore's name was not among them. Then a wonder of wonders happens. Ms. Moore emerges as Goodloe-Johnson's choice. Who else was involved? Ms. Middleton was the Associate Superintendent assigned to keep watch over District 20. Without legal authority, she and G-J, scuttled the process in favor of their preferred candidate, Ms. Moore. And who offered Ms. Moore the job in Wilmington? Why Ms. Middleton, of course.
Just is just a little clarification of the details to this story. Nancy McGinley, and before her Maria Goodloe-Johnson, always had the power to select whomever they wanted. You are right that the veil of this deception was removed when they requested the law to be changed last year. The superintendent should have been more careful what she wished for. She can't hide the fact that the choice of MiShawna Moore was all hers.
The District 20 Board made their reservations about Ms. Moore known to the administration as early as 2004. But then, what does a mere constituent board know? Maybe they do have an ear to the ground that a fat and happy mega school district can't have.
Just call me a CCSD refugee now in the witness protection program.
Am I the only one who is curious why no board members are quoted in the P&C story (the original on Wed., or the followup on Thurs.)?
It's because any face time in front of the media on this issue won't give any one of them much traction, especially Toya Green. She after all, seems more comfortable with just repeating the official line. I doubt if she has any idea what goes on at Sanders-Clyde anyway. She's too busy reading seismic study reports about potential earthquakes to bother with what goes on in Charleston County public school classrooms.
Another thing I'm curious about: How did the S-C kids do on the MAP tests? (For any readers not familiar with this, it's the computerized Measures of Academic Progress test given at least twice a year). The results of this test are availahle right away; no waiting around for grading like the PACT.)
So, was there a big discrepancy between MAP and PACT scores? Not that they're directly comparable, but if you have a whole bunch of kids who score proficient on PACT but below-average on MAP, it seems like that would send up a red flag.
I don't know exactly what the allegations are at S-C; but I can see only two ways you could cheat on the MAP tests: (a) teachers (or some other stand-ins) take the tests for the kids; (b) teachers stand over the kids and give them the right answers. There wouldn't be any way for a teacher or principal to change the test answers after the fact; the kids can't even go back to review or correct answers they've already completed.
I brought this to the boards attention 3 days after the fact to which Mr. Meyers said he wasn't going to listen to another round from me about how much I hate people. An employee of the school also took it to Goodloe and McGinley, whoops, I guess she isn't there anymore. I have tried for 2 years to get the paper to write this story to which my response was where is the proof. I guess bottom line is we really did have to wait 2 years to get different scores for proof. But, isn't it ironic the district already knew of the excessive eraser marks. Mishawna supposedly had lost the keys to the storage closet and when told they could send a locksmith over she "finished" her work. The sad thing is who are the real osers here? This meaningful act has hurt those kids. Mishawna should be sued for 2 years pay. Jerri Middleton hired Mishawna here and then in NC What are they covering up now?
Sandi
Where there's smoke there's probably a fire. How much proof is needed if children are at risk? Whatever happened to erring on the side of caution?
It is ironic that Mr. Meyers describes himself as a child advocate. Along with Ms. Hampton-Green there are two lawyers on the board and they circle the wagons on every issue. You would think this was a Union state.
If the people in charge really were concerned about the children at Sanders-Clyde, and those at other schools in just as much need, why did they disregard the serious concerns expressed by the community over McGinley's highly irregular action to appoint this women as the principal of two schools at once?
Although many believe there can be very successful turnarounds at schools like Sanders-Clyde, it will always require broad based community commitment and sustained support from school leaders. The plan looked good on paper but there were many things that didn't feel right when the rubber hit the road. It was always in the back of our minds that county school officials were more interested in appearances than substance.
For many of these kids, this was a once in a lifetime chance that has been stolen. Don't forget that the school had broad based community support, but these volunteers and committed teachers must rely on the guidance of school district leaders in order play a supportive role in the school.
The plans for Sanders-Clyde made for good press, but now it appears doubtful if McGinley ever really believed in them. All you have to do is listen to her describe at-risk 4 and 5 year olds and see how she and CCSD sets the lowest expectations for them.
I agree with Clisby. There were plenty of opportunities to check the progress locally and make changes as needed. The trouble is, McGinley was either stretched too thin or just didn't care until it became so obvious she has no choice but to address it.
Goodloe-Johnson had nothing to do with hiring Moore. Moore was hired as Principal of Sanders Clyde in the summer of 2003 while McWhirt was still at the helm, but hardly running the place. Goodloe-Johnson hadn't even interviewed for the job. For crying out loud people, move on. She has. If you're going to blame her for misgivings in this District, at least get your facts straight.
Post a Comment